Keri was a professor in the education department at Indiana University-Purdue University at Fort Wayne (IPFW), and Hartman
and Swinehart were students who had taken courses Keri taught. In April 2003, Keri was informed his contract would not be
renewed because of unsatisfactory teaching performance. The next month, Hartman and Swinehart filed formal complaints with
Purdue's Affirmative Action Office at IPFW alleging sexual harassment by Keri.

The university assigned an investigator to interview Keri, Hartman, Swinehart, Keri's colleagues, and current and former students
of Keri. The investigator concluded that statements from other students found Keri created a hostile environment, other students
had wanted to come forward but were scared to make a report, and that Keri had harassed Hartman. The investigator recommended
Keri be removed from teaching and away from contact of students.

The report's findings were reviewed and approved; Keri appealed to Purdue University's president, who upheld the decision.
Keri then filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana against Purdue, alleging state tort claims and violations of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Purdue, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the District Court's ruling.

Keri then filed suit in Allen Superior Court against Hartman and Swinehart, alleging libel, slander, and malicious interference
with his employment contract. The two students moved for summary judgment, which the court granted on the malicious interference
count; but it denied summary judgment on the libel and slander claims.

The students appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, deciding Hartman and Swinehart's statements were
protected by an absolute privilege.

The Indiana Supreme Court today affirmed the Court of Appeals ruling, finding many courts have described the processes of
educational institutions as quasi-judicial, wrote Justice Theodore Boehm. Even though Purdue's anti-harassment procedures
don't have such formal apparatus as subpoena power, discovery, and proceedings under oath, as long as the process is reasonably
transparent and fair, and allows the subject an opportunity to respond, it qualifies as quasi-judicial and allows for absolute
privilege.

"Although Purdue's procedure may lack the trappings of a traditional court proceeding, it is orderly and reasonably fair,
requires 'appropriate discipline' for those who file knowingly false or malicious complaints, and promises reasonable efforts
to restore the reputation of anyone charged with discrimination or harassment that proves unsubstantiated," wrote Justice
Boehm.

Absolute privilege is necessary for students like Hartman and Swinehart who file complaints according to university policy,
or else it could have a chilling effect on legitimate complaints for fear of retaliation. To try to curb false or malicious
reports by students, students who are found to have lied will be punished academically, which should curb false reporting,
he wrote.

In a separate but concurring in result opinion, Justice Robert Rucker further explored what makes the university's procedures
for addressing harassment complaints quasi-judicial in nature. Keri had argued he should have been allowed to subpoena witnesses
and cross-examine witnesses for it to be a quasi-judicial process. Justice Rucker wrote based on the facts of the case, it's
clear the university's administrative procedure is quasi-judicial because the school exercised judgment and discretion, determined
facts to make a decision, made binding orders, affected Keri's property rights, examined witnesses, and enforced its decision.
As such, the students' communications made pursuant to the anti-harassment policy are entitled to absolute privilege, he wrote.

The Supreme Court remanded to the trial court with instructions to grant Hartman and Swinehart's motion for summary judgment.

Conversations

0 Comments

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or
hateful.

You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.

Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content
are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.

No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are
relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.

We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag
a post simply because you disagree with it.